Not to debate, more for thought

Post #331,441 by beepster 8/17/10 11:20:11 AM Reply	Not to debate, more for thought as to >why< you associate more power to the word, when in many instances, its said with the same malice, simply in different directions. Why is one intent worse than the other? Thats my $0.02, YMMV ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,443 by Another Scott 8/17/10 11:24:33 AM Reply	It's a power thing.
Post #331,447 by beepster 8/17/10 11:41:24 AM Reply	Thats what I don't get the argument that racism is less racist depending on who it is. I get the historical aspects..and the economic aspects...but when it gets to the bare metal, hate is hate. I don't agree with the "power" thing. Thats a different aspect. that doesn't address the base hate. it actually, imo, rationalizes it for some. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,449 by jake123 8/17/10 11:52:19 AM Reply	Power matters It especially matters if you're the one that doesn't have it.
Post #331,454 by crazy 8/17/10 12:56:37 PM Reply	People with power rarely do It goes against your survival instinct to accept certain things. Giving away power is the ultimate in stupidity. At least from a single organism evolutionary viewpoint. So you don't. You may or may not get it, and then decide you like it, and any downside to having it isn't so bad. Or you may be dumb (or nice), and act on impulse, and decide because of it you'll give some power away, occasionally.
Post #331,474 by beepster 8/17/10 6:54:31 PM Reply	You are both missing my point entirely. I understand your argument. Being dismissive of my talking point because "I have the power and they don't" is disingenuous. My point is the core stereotypical assumption that race is a characteristic that denotes a difference and that using that basis to direct general hatred is racist behavior. It has nothing to do with having power and everything to do with individual/group behavior. If a guy in the deep south is working for a black man and calls him the N word, by your definition that is NOT racist. (he doesn't have the power in that relationship). By my definition, it is. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #331,479 by Another Scott 8/17/10 8:48:05 PM Reply	Your point doesn't make much sense. To me, anyway. And you seem to be changing the topic. My point is the core stereotypical assumption that race is a characteristic that denotes a difference and that using that basis to direct general hatred is racist behavior. It has nothing to do with having power and everything to do with individual/group behavior. If a guy in the deep south is working for a black man and calls him the N word, by your definition that is NOT racist. (he doesn't have the power in that relationship). By my definition, it is. That isn't what I thought you were saying. (Your second paragraph certainly doesn't argue against the point I was trying to make.) I thought you were criticizing some members of some groups being called on using the N word while others weren't. I'll try again to make myself clear before bowing out. As TNC said above, racism is all about power of one group over another. Power that can hold down a minority (as in the antebellum South) or a majority (as in pre-Mandela South Africa). It's not about personal power. A 100 pound 12 year old girl calling a 250 pound black man the N word in Atlanta in 1960 would certainly be engaged in racist behavior even though she would have no physical power over him. Her society certainly had power over him, though, so he would have felt the sting... When derogatory terms from that time, that were used when people were murdered by mobs, are resurrected as an insult, all of that history is dragged up again with that word. It's not about individual power, or lack thereof. There are cases that one could cite about the use of the N word by a white person that is arguably not racist. E.g. the Elvis Costello song "Oliver's Army". One could also look to the past and see the word used in what might be considered a non-racist way - e.g. someone who knows of no other term for a black person. Or, to illustrate a deeper point, as say, Jim in Tom Sawyer. Dr. Laura and Michael Richards weren't cases like those. You seem to argue that one should ignore the history of the word, when that history is the elephant in the room when it's trotted out. Or just say it's too complicated so nobody should use it any more. I maintain it's not complicated - context matters. Another take on this topic is by Randall Kennedy, who wrote a book on it. An interview with him is here - http://www.theatlant...int2002-01-17.htm (scroll down). He's got a complicated view of the word, and arguing for consideration of context, but I'm not sure I agree with him in all aspects... Now maybe I'm misreading you and we're actually in agreement. Wouldn't be the first time; you can have the last word. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #331,488 by boxley 8/18/10 8:02:00 AM Reply	I think they are as well when a liberal democrat comedian loses it and starts screaming nigger nigger nigger, White people get upset, they expect that behavior from southern crackers. An american person with african ancestors isnt upset because he knows those whitebread democratic liberals are as willing as the KKK boys to hold him down. He doesnt expect anything different. When Byrd made a comment about white niggers the black community didnt quibble because they new exactly what he meant, nigger is an attitude not a color. White liberals get extremely upset because they are all secretly thinking exactly like the white comedian.

Welcome to IWETHEY!